Austin's proposed ban on smoking.

[Longhorn]

I'm riding my bike at the Veloway and listening to the radio when this commercial comes on with some guy who owns a bunch of bars, Amy of Amy's Ice Cream, and some comedian, all telling me that a vote against the smoking ban is a vote FOR personal freedom.

That comment really makes my blood boil because my reaction is, what about MY personal freedom? While a smoker may choose to smoke, I have no choice about whether to breathe. I think an addiction to breathing tops an addiction to smoking any time!

I can't vote in this election because I don't live in Austin. But the election affects my husband and me since Austin is where we go for entertainment. We don't go to any of the live music venues in Austin, other than Bass, Bates, One World, etc., because we can't stand the smoke.

If they want to campaign against the ban by being honest, by telling us that they believe that a smoker's addiction to tobacco is more important than my right to relatively unpolluted air for financial reasons, then go for it. But to claim that this is an issue of "personal freedom" is an insult.

[onehandle]

1. I'm not in Texas, but I agree with you 100%.

My wife and I rarely go to bars and small music venues. We always have to weigh whether it's worth the discomfort. Most cities will be passing similar laws sooner than later. There's an entire county here in Georgia that banned public smoking as a health hazard and public nuisance. Pushed by moms and fundies.

[Rainbowreflect]

2. Thank you for what you said.

My city voted on a smoking ban last November & it passed by over 65%. I am so glad I can actually go to a bar again. I have very bad allergies to cigarette smoke & have not been to a bar in years.
There are still letters to the editor every week whining about the smoking ban.
I am strong believer in your rights end where mine begin.
They say I had a choice to go to a smoking bar or not. That is untrue. I & millions like me did not have a choice. I would be very ill if I went anywhere there was smoking so I was unable to go to bars or many concerts I wanted to attend. Smokers can still go anywhere they wish they just cannot smoke while they are there.

[redqueen]

3. I'm with you.

And disappointed in Amy.

[crispini]

4. That argument sounds specious to me.

That said, though, we have a smoking ban in Dallas -- in just restaurants, not bars -- and it has really hit the industry very hard. One of my favorite mom and pop restaurants actually had to CLOSE because of it. Others have reported really big profit losses. And that's just restaurants. What happens is, especially if they are on the border, people will go to a burb instead, where they still have smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants.

I can't imagine what a smoking ban in a BAR would do to the bar's business. Seems to me that this would quite possibly destroy a lot of the live music scene.

[NoPasaran]

5. I voted against the ban

Yeah, I know that smoking is awful and evil and all that, and I tend not to go to the few places in Austin that are filled with smoke. But I don't like the idea of government making the decision of whether or not bars should allow smoking for the business owners.

By the way, on this issue my view differs from the council candidate I support in my signature line.

[tammywammy]

6. I think along the same lines as you

It should be the business owners decision not the government.

I smoke, but I don't mind if I go to non-smoking restaurants.

I just really think that the owners should be the one that decides if they're going to have smoking or not.

[Longhorn]

7. The problem is that very few owners are going to give up business

that will just move elsewhere. The only way it is fair is if all owners are in the same boat.

Also, even if nonsmokers are in the majority in a place, it only takes one or two smokers to foul up the air for everyone else, so the minority ends up infringing on the rights of the majority.

Finally, this issue goes beyond whether I, as a nonsmoker, will frequent these places. It's also unhealthy for the workers who are subjected to secondhand smoke the entire time. And in this economy especially, it's not that easy to get another job.

I believe there are times when the government does have to take a stand. It certainly had to get involved in order to end racial segregation. For many restaurant owners in the south in the 60s, for example, it would have been financial suicide to integrate but once discrimination was illegal, they had the "cover" of the law on their side.

[tammywammy]

8. Another solution to this problem

In Arlington, I remember when they started their no smoking ban.
Each restaurant got, I think, 6 months to install separate ventilation systems and completely block off the smoking section from the non-smoking area. So, IHOP for instance, has a separate room, with a separate AC system for the smoking area. So there's walls/glass and a door separating the two sections and the smoke isn't just going through the AC vent into the non-smoking area.

If a restaurant didn't want to spend the money to install another air conditioner, then well, they didn't have a smoking section.

The only difference was if it was a bar. I think they have to have a certain percentage of sales from alcohol (like 75-80%) to not have to comply with these rules.

I think there should be a choice to the business owner, such as installing a separate ventilation system, and not just an outright ban.

[Longhorn]

9. Austin already has such a no-smoking ordinance.

Here's a summary of how this has come about and various views on the topic from the Austin Chronicle, Austin's progressive newspaper: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-03-04/pols_feature5.html

The current ban doesn't help me a bit. I don't care about not going to bars but there are times when I'd like to go hear a band and they play in bars and other venues that allow smoking.

[tammywammy]

10. Thanks for the link

It's a tough issue for me, because I do see both sides.

I don't think it's right that you cannot go out to a bar and enjoy a band for the evening. And I also think it should be up to the owners to decide if they want to allow smoking.

But, alas, thankfully I'm not the one trying to solve this problem.

When I was in San Francisco a year and a half ago, I really had no problem not being able to smoke in any of the restaurants or bars. Yes, after my delicious dinner and an Irish coffee, I was craving a cig, but I just waited until we were done, and lit up once I was outside. (And a side note, I don't carelessly throw my cig butts on the street, I flick or stamp out the burning end and in the trash it goes.)

[texanwitch]

11. I am a non-smoker

so I do not go any place where smoking is allowed.

I do not care if people smoke but not around me. I just wonder how much money is lost because non-smokers like myself stay away.

I live in Houston so public smoking is not allowed. I have a cousin who gets very ill if she is around a smoker, and she isn't the only one.

So smokers need to understand that they can smoke but please have a little respect for nonsmokers lungs.

I like the idea of having a seperate room for smokers so they can smoke, that is only fair.

This isn't that difficult of a problem to solve, we just need to respect each other.